Adam Gardiner et al v. TSYS Business Solutions, LLC et al, No. 8:2018cv00415 - Document 34 (C.D. Cal. 2019)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT by Judge David O. Carter. The Court hereby approves the payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of settlement administration costs in the amount of $16,500.00 to Kurt zman Carson Consultants, LLC, the Settlement Administrator, for services rendered in this matter. The Court also approves payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of an Incentive Payment of $7,500.00 to each of the Class Representatives (for a t otal of $22,500.00) to reimburse the Class Representatives for their valuable services in initiating and maintaining this litigation and the benefits conferred onto the Settlement Class as a result of the Action. The Court hereby approves a payment from the Gross Settlement Amount of $37,500.00 to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency. The Court hereby awards to Class Counsel the amount of $428,333.33 for attorneys fees, and the amount of $14,324.78 for litigation costs.SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. RE: 26 , 25 . MD JS-6, Case Terminated. (twdb)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Adam Gardiner et al v. TSYS Business Solutions, LLC et al Doc. 34 1 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 17 ADAM GARDINER, JOSEPH GRECO, and SEAN CONROY, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 vs. TSYS BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, LLC, f/k/a TRANSFIRST, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; TOTAL SYSTEM SERVICES, INC., a Georgia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. Case No. 8:18-cv-00415 DOC (JCGx) FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT [25], [26] Judge: Date: Time: Dept.: Hon. David O. Carter January 28, 2019 8:30 a.m. 9D 25 26 27 28 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL Dockets.Justia.com 1 This matter came on for hearing on January 24, 2019, at 8:30 a.m., in 2 Department 9D of the United States District Court for the Central District of 3 California before the Honorable David O. Carter. Due and adequate notice having 4 been given to the Settlement Class (as defined below), and the Court having 5 considered all papers filed and proceedings held herein, all oral and written 6 comments and any objections received regarding the proposed settlement, and 7 having reviewed the record in the above captioned matter, and good cause appearing 8 thereto, 9 10 11 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the above- 12 captioned action (the “Action”), the Class Representatives Adam Gardiner, Joseph 13 Greco, and Sean Conroy (“Plaintiffs” or “Class Representatives”), Defendants 14 TSYS Merchant Solutions, LLC and Total System Services, Inc. (“Defendants”), 15 and all members of the Settlement Class, which is defined as follows: 16 17 18 19 20 All of Defendants’ non-exempt Sales Representatives or Account Executives in California who were paid pursuant to Defendants’ recoverable draw-based commission compensation plan(s) at any time since September 8, 2013 through [September 24, 2018]. 2. The terms “Settlement” or “Settlement Agreement” shall refer to the 21 Settlement Agreement and Release of Claims filed by Plaintiffs as Exhibit 1 to the 22 Declaration of Paul K. Haines in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 23 Approval, on August 13, 2018 (Dkt. No. 20-1), and all terms herein shall have the 24 same meaning as the terms defined in the Settlement Agreement, unless specifically 25 provided herein. 26 3. The Court grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement because 27 it meets the criteria for final settlement approval. The settlement falls within the 28 range of approval as fair, adequate, and reasonable, appears to be the product of 1 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 arm’s-length and informed negotiations, and treats all members of the Settlement 2 Class fairly. 3 4. The Court finds that the distribution by U.S. first-class mail of the 4 Class Notice constituted the best notice practicable under the circumstances to all 5 persons within the definition of the Settlement Class and fully met the requirements 6 of due process under the United States Constitution and applicable state law. Based 7 on evidence and other material submitted in conjunction with the Final Approval 8 Hearing, the notice to the Settlement Class was adequate. The notice informed 9 members of the Settlement Class of the terms of the Settlement, their right to 10 participate in the Settlement and how to do so, their right to object to the Settlement, 11 their right to appear in person or by counsel at the Final Approval Hearing and be 12 heard regarding approval of the Settlement, and their right to exclude themselves 13 from the Settlement and pursue their own remedies. Adequate periods of time were 14 provided by each of these procedures. No members of the Settlement Class objected 15 to the Settlement or any portion thereof, and no members of the Settlement Class 16 opted out of the Settlement. 17 5. The Court finds, for purposes of settlement only, that the Settlement 18 Class satisfies the applicable standards for certification under Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) and under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, 20 solely for purposes of effectuating this Settlement, this Court has certified the 21 Settlement Class, as defined above. Because the Settlement Class is being certified 22 here for settlement purposes only, the Court need not (and does not) address the 23 manageability requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). See Amchem Products, Inc. v. 24 Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997). 25 6. The Court approves the Settlement, and each of the releases and other 26 terms set forth in the Settlement Agreement, as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to 27 the Settlement Class, the Class Representatives, and Defendants (collectively the 28 “Settling Parties”). The Settling Parties and the Settlement Administrator are 2 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 directed to perform in accordance with the terms set forth in the Settlement 2 Agreement. 3 7. Because no Class Member has opted out of the Settlement, all of the 4 claims asserted in the Action are dismissed with prejudice as to the Class 5 Representatives and all members of the Settlement Class. The Settling Parties are 6 to bear their own attorneys’ fees and costs, except as otherwise provided in the 7 Settlement Agreement and in this Judgment and Order. 8 8. By this Judgment, and upon satisfaction of the obligations delineated 9 in the Settlement Agreement, the Class Representatives and all Class Members 10 (collectively the “Releasing Members”), hereby release Defendants and each 11 Released Party (as defined in the Settlement Agreement) from all released claims 12 identified in the Settlement Agreement. 13 9. The Action is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, permanently 14 barring the Releasing Members from prosecuting any of the released claims as 15 defined in the Settlement Agreement. The Court reserves and retains exclusive and 16 continuing jurisdiction over the Action, the Class Representatives, the Settlement 17 Class, and Defendants for the purposes of supervising the implementation, 18 effectuation, enforcement, construction, administration, and interpretation of the 19 Settlement Agreement and this Judgment. 20 10. The Court finds that the plan of allocation of the Net Settlement 21 Amount as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable, and that 22 distribution of Individual Settlement Payments to the Settlement Class shall be 23 effected in accordance with the terms outlined in the Settlement Agreement. 24 11. The Court hereby confirms the appointment of Adam Gardiner, Joseph 25 Greco, and Sean Conroy as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class for 26 purposes of settlement. 27 28 12. The Court hereby confirms the appointment of Paul K. Haines, Tuvia Korobkin, and Stacey M. Shim of Haines Law Group, APC and Isam C. Khoury, 3 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 Michael D. Singer, and Jeff Geraci of Cohelan Khoury & Singer as Class Counsel 2 for the Settlement Class for purposes of the Settlement and the releases and other 3 obligations therein. 13. 4 The Court hereby approves the payment from the Gross Settlement 5 Amount of settlement administration costs in the amount of $16,500.00 to 6 Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, the Settlement Administrator, for services 7 rendered in this matter. 8 Settlement Amount of an Incentive Payment of $7,500.00 to each of the Class 9 Representatives (for a total of $22,500.00) to reimburse the Class Representatives 10 for their valuable services in initiating and maintaining this litigation and the 11 benefits conferred onto the Settlement Class as a result of the Action. The Court 12 finds that these payments are fair and reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is 13 directed to make the foregoing payments in accordance with the terms of the 14 Settlement Agreement. 14. 15 The Court also approves payment from the Gross The Court hereby approves a payment from the Gross Settlement 16 Amount of $37,500.00 to the California Labor & Workforce Development Agency 17 for its share of penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act, 18 pursuant to Labor Code § 2699(i), in accordance with the terms of the Settlement 19 Agreement. 15. 20 The Court hereby awards to Class Counsel the amount of $428,333.33 21 for attorney’s fees, and the amount of $14,324.78 for litigation costs. Based on 22 Plaintiffs’ Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Class Representative Incentive 23 Payments, the Court finds that Class Counsel advanced legal theories on a 24 contingent-fee basis, and that their efforts resulted in a substantial monetary 25 recovery for the Settlement Class. The Court finds this payment to be fair and 26 reasonable. The Settlement Administrator is ordered to make these payments to 27 Class Counsel in accordance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 28 /// 4 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL 1 16. Final judgment is hereby entered pursuant to Rule 23(c)(3) of the 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). This 3 document shall constitute a final judgment for purposes of Rule 58 of the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 8 9 Dated: January 24, 2019 _____________________________ The Honorable David O. Carter United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 FINAL JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
